- Search with
- Parallel SearchEnter a full sentence between 5 and 30 words to find cases with conceptually similar sentences
- or
- Keyword SearchEnter keyword terms, accompanied by optional Boolean connectors
- ANDfraud AND damagesBoth terms in document
- ORcar OR automobileEither term in document
- NOTinfringement NOT patentTerm must not appear in document
- """due diligence"Exact match
- ()appeal AND (verdict OR judgment)Grouping terms
- *withdr*wSingle letter wildcard (withdraw, withdrew)
- !infring!Root expander (infringe, infringed, infringing)
- /ninvestor /5 diligenceTerms within n words of each other
- /sfees /s reasonableTerms within same sentence
- /padmissible /p warrantTerms within the same paragraph
Harlie R. Norris Co., Ltd., v. Lovett
123 Cal.App. 640 (Cal. Ct. App. 1932)2 Citing cases
Victory Oil Co. v. Hancock Oil Co.
125 Cal.App.2d 222 (Cal. Ct. App. 1954) Cited 29 timesNoting a deed excepting and reserving minerals for a period of five years, and " ‘in the event’ " minerals were found within the 5-year period, continuing for 20-years-plus production, was void under the Rule; additionally noting there was production on the land in the secondary term
[6] It is true that decisions written on a subject prior to the enactment of a statutory provision thereon are not necessarily controlling. ( Harlie R. Norris Co., Ltd. v. Lovett, 123 Cal.App. 640 [ 12 P.2d 141].) However, the necessity for adherence to the doctrine of stare decisis was very early decided in California in the landmark case of Hart v. Burnett, 15 Cal. 530, 601.
Calif. Western Holding Co. v. Merrill
7 Cal.App.2d 131 (Cal. Ct. App. 1935) Cited 9 timesIn California Western Holding Co. v. Merrill, 7 Cal.App.2d 131, 153, 46 P.2d 175, 186, the court said that 'under the law actual good faith is of no import, if the law has not been complied with.
The parties themselves have called it a "subscription agreement", its language and terms make it apparent that it is a subscription agreement irrespective of its title, and finally case construction of similar agreements as well as definitions of terms set forth in the Corporate Securities Act, brand it with finality as such. ( Olds v. Simmons, 123 Cal.App. 275 [ 11 P.2d 36]; People v. Oliver, 102 Cal.App. 29 [ 282 P. 813]; People v. Claggett, 130 Cal.App. 141 [ 19 P.2d 805]; Johnson v. Hulse, 83 Cal.App. 111 [ 256 P. 551]; First National Bank of Calexico v. Thompson, 212 Cal. 388 [ 298 P. 808]; Castle v. Acme Ice Cream Co., 101 Cal.App. 94 [ 281 P. 396]; Black v. Solano Co., 114 Cal.App. 170 [ 299 P. 843]; Rossi v. Jedlick, 115 Cal.App. 230 [ 1 P.2d 1065]; Klombies v. Weeks Poultry Community, 121 Cal.App. 175 [ 8 P.2d 940]; Herkner v. Rubin, 126 Cal.App. 677 [ 14 P.2d 1043]; Harlie R. Norris Co., Ltd., v. Lovett, 123 Cal.App. 640 [ 12 P.2d 141]; Union Bank Tr. Co. v. Joyner, 40 Ariz. 229 [ 11 P.2d 829].) [4] Our courts have uniformly held that these conditions of section 25 must be complied with when such agreements are made, and that a failure to conform to any of them invalidates the subscription.